Activision: Brutal Legend is ours. EA: Activision is a jealous ex-husband.

N

Nephlabobo

CAGiversary!
Activision: Brutal Legend is ours. EA: Activision is a jealous ex-husband.

Think the drama over "Brutal Legend" is over? Think again.

It turns out that Activision Blizzard is under the impression it still has publishing rights to the game. And it’s threatening to sue developer Double Fine and new publisher Electronic Arts as a result.

(Some background for anyone who hasn’t followed this whole drama for the past year: Double Fine, developer of the critically acclaimed but underperforming “Psychonauts,” set up “Brutal Legend,” an action game set in the world of heavy metal that stars Jack Black, at Vivendi Games. Then last year Vivendi Games merged with Activision to form Activision Blizzard. The newly merged company, led by Activision execs, declined to pick up a number of Vivendi’s projects, including, it appeared, “Brutal Legend.” Then in December, Electronic Arts announced that it had reached a deal with Double Fine and would release the game next fall.)

Now Activision Blizzard has written a letter to EA (and possibly Double Fine) informing them of its legal concerns. According to two sources familiar with ActiBlizzard’s position, the publisher believes that it was still in negotiations with Double Fine and that the EA deal is invalid.

Does that mean ActiBlizzard wants “Brutal Legend” for itself? Nope. I’ve been told it doesn’t think the game has the potential to be the kind of mega-profitable, “Call of Duty”-size franchise that it looks for these days.

So what does it want? A good guess would be money in exchange for giving up its publishing rights. That is what it received from Atari for “Ghostbusters” and “The Chronicles of Riddick: Dark Athena,” for instance.

Double Fine’s position, however, appears to be that it owns the rights to “Brutal Legend” and that somehow in the merger process, whether because there’s no longer a Vivendi Games or because the original fall 2008 publishing date passed and Activision didn’t express interest in finding a new one, it's allowed to find a new publisher.

An Activision Blizzard rep declined to comment. But EA has responded with its claws bared, giving me this rather pointed response:
We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy.

Me-ow.

http://weblogs.variety.com/the_cut_s...exhusband.html

So...Activision can fuck right off. Talk about slimy. Go EA!
 
*Grabs popcorn*
Man, I can't wait to see what happens on next week's "Desperate Publishers."

*Munch* *Munch*
 
So wait. Activision let go of Brutal Legend and now says "Wait a second, it actually looks like it's going to make money. WANT!" Seriously? You know what? I'm going to buy this just say fuck you, Activision.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']So wait. Activision let go of Brutal Legend and now says "Wait a second, it actually looks like it's going to make money. WANT!" Seriously? You know what? I'm going to buy this just say fuck you, Activision.[/QUOTE]

Looks like they don't care if it makes money or not. They just want EA to toss them money for the rights to publish it.

They even said it themselves that they can't exploit it and rape it every year with new sequels so they could careless about it.
 
[quote name='Nephlabobo']
An Activision Blizzard rep declined to comment. But EA has responded with its claws bared, giving me this rather pointed response:
We doubt that Activision would try to sue. That would be like a husband abandoning his family and then suing after his wife meets a better looking guy.
[/QUOTE]

:rofl:
 
You know, a couple years ago, it would have been pretty hard to make EA look like the good guys in a situation.

And Activision just did that.
 
I seem to recall someone telling me that one of Doublefine's stipulations in regards to publishers is that they retain full rights to their stuff. I think this is what gave them a lot of trouble with Psychonauts as well.

Activision can fuck off. They already cockblocked the game once, then attempted to cockblock DF from finding a new publisher, and now they are trying to cockblock EA.

You have a tiny dick, Activision. Stop thinking it's an effective deterrent.
 
[quote name='help1']You know, a couple years ago, it would have been pretty hard to make EA look like the good guys in a situation.

And Activision just did that.[/quote]
Wow no kidding, not that long ago we were all cheering for Activision over EA.

I really hope Brutal Legend sells really well so that EA can rub that in Activision's face.
 
Activision needs to give it up. They have no interest in this because they can't go on to make Brutal Legend: Alanis Morrisette next year, and BL: Yanni the year after, and BL: Cash Cow for the next ten years...so instead they want EA to pay them for the right.

EA gets credit for being in the right in this situation, but also bonus points for the awesome quote from the rep :applause:
 
This reminds me of when Activision wanted money for Harmonix/EA/MTV Games for using a GH guitar on RB. This news just makes me hate Activision more and assuring I NEVER buy a brand new game from them again (only buy used).
 
Wow... You can't even come close to buying this type of publicity for a game. Viral marketing? Tv commercials? Internet Ads?... nope. EA vs Activision: Fight!!
 
You realize, Vivendi ('ne Activision) financed Brutal Legend's development for the first 2 years or so...not a small chunk of change. They were paid for the other games Activision got rid of (Ghostbusters and....something else) to compensate for the development funds. This is most likely just the same thing.

They don't want the game, they want to be reimbursed for the dev funds put into it, which is most likely in the contract. I've dealt with Activision contracts, they'd don't screw around.
 
……………./´¯/)
……………/…./
…………../…./
……../´¯/’..’/´¯¯`·¸
…../’/../…./……./¨¯\
…(’(…………. ¯~/’..’)
….\…………….’…../
…..’\'……………_.·´
…….\…………..(
……..\…………..\

To activision.
 
Fanboys and business don't mix. If you worked in the legal department at any company and you didn't do everything in your power to protect the property of your organization, then you deserve to be fired. There's nothing funny going on here. It's just standard business.
 
That is an awesome quote, but yeah... I imagine in the end EA will have to pay Activision some cash to cover what Activision spent in development costs. Great quote from EA though.
 
[quote name='jkanownik']Fanboys and business don't mix. If you worked in the legal department at any company and you didn't do everything in your power to protect the property of your organization, then you deserve to be fired. There's nothing funny going on here. It's just standard business.[/QUOTE]

Right. The corporation doesn't love you back, and doesn't generally care about affinity - unless that affinity helps the bottom line.

If folks are so bent out of shape about the way Activision does business that they feel compelled to do something, you have two options:

1) Don't buy Activision titles at all

or, more realistically, since Activision delves in franchises that release 1-3+ titles per year, every year, and none of y'all have any willpower whatsoever,

2) GameFly your Activision titles, or buy them used only.

I'm realistic enough to think that any sort of "let's boycott ____" won't ever work, especially after the Madden/NFL 2K fiasco a number of years back. And, frankly, I'm not convinced this will amount to anything either. People will still line up by the millions to buy Guitar Hero: Metallica, and then they'll come here to complain about how Activision is the pimps and their franchises are worn-out whores.

But that aside, I'm still sour about them cockblocking EA from allowing the GHIII Les Paul from working in Rock Band (until just a few months ago). They outright said "we want money for this." Which, you have to respect the audacity of that. At the same time, this business approach is a little shy of asking you to plunk two quarters into your PS3 every time you boot up Call of Duty.

Not that they're the only big jerks in the game. Unlock keys for DLC are the bane of my existence this generation, and what they mean for user rights. EA does this often for titles (not all of them, mind), and Capcom is doing this with the new outfits for SFIV characters. In the case of the latter, it's $20 to download a 128KB file that unlocks media on the physical disc you possess. It's interesting, legally, to think how you can possess something and yet not legally "own" it. But it's, I lament, smart business because motherfuckers are going to drop $20 for Ryu's frilly panties and a bare-midriff whatever-her-name-is-with-the-fauxhawk.

I hate this generation.
 
I still don't understand all the uproar against Activision. It's as simple as voting with your dollars. If you like a game they made, buy it. If you don't like a game they made, don't buy it. They're just a company listening to dollars like every good company does.
 
[quote name='roland13x']I still don't understand all the uproar against Activision. It's as simple as voting with your dollars. If you like a game they made, buy it. If you don't like a game they made, don't buy it. They're just a company listening to dollars like every good company does.[/QUOTE]

It's more complex than that, I'm afeared. Much more.
 
[quote name='roland13x'] They're just a company listening to dollars like every good company does.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but they had games they agreed to publish, only to let Bobby Fattick show up and start axing them because they couldn't "be exploited across every platform multiple times a year and beyond." He actually used the word "exploited."

Then when those developers attempt to go elsewhere, Activision not only tries to stop them, but even continues their mindless assaults after agreements have (supposedly) been reached by all parties involved.

It's not just taking your ball and going home - it's doing that and then going back to the field and stealing the new ball someone got, all the while screaming about how YOU SHOULDN'T BE HAVING FUN WITHOUT ME - I GET TO DECIDE THAT, I'M TAKING THIS BALL BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE MINE WHICH MEANS I'M PRETTY SURE IT IS INDEED MINE.

You know if you want to sit back and fart out Guitar Hero and Call of Duty for eternity, then that's fine. But quit bitching when that earns you some ill will from a portion of your target audience, and ESPECIALLY don't bitch when those people you're so adamant from not helping out suddenly go looking elsewhere. (Side note: None of this really matters, since most of those people will go out and buy it anyway.)

Almost no one cares about who is publishing what - we're just interested in the final products and how they may or may not have been altered during the creation process. If this stuff is so cut and dry as comments in this thread are claiming it to be, why is Activision bitching several months after the fact that EA picked this game up?

I don't get lawyers and business for this exact reason - no one has an issue until there's cash to be paid somewhere simply because someone is always willing to reopen the wound and bleed it out.

Point being is that at the end of the day, perhaps this is all entirely by the book, and those reporting on it are just putting spin on in order to rally people to their site for ad revenue. Which means I'd actually like to be exposed to the honest proceedings, but that's not going to happen either. So it all just looks like one big clusterfuck of misinformation. But still - I wants my damn BL, and anyone standing in the way of that looks like a bastard, and I'll happily remark as much.
 
No offense intended for any of the nay-sayers here, but I worked at Activision for 6 years and dealt with their contracts and how they do business quite often. I now own my own developer (http://blogs.ign.com/Realheroes/) and deal with publisher contracts on a daily basis.

Why did it take several months for them to speak up? It most likely didn't...it was most likely private conversations between the parties right away. When they couldn't agree, it went to court. Since they are public companies, it went public. This stuff happens on a daily basis, you just don't always read about it. Activision is not in the wrong here, they're just protecting their own investments (or to be more accurate, the company to acquired them's investments).

As for Kotick and the "exploit" line...well, they are a business, and a very successful one at that. "Exploit" to me is a terrible word as well, but in the end, that's exactly what it is. I never really cared for the newer management there (I'm talking the higher-higher ups...most production level people there were solid), and the annual releases was one major reason why I decided to leave and start my own thing.

However, even though "exploit" is a dirty word, don't forget that it's not like they push a big red button to pop out the latest CoD or GH. There are teams of hundreds of developers behind each release. The vast majority of which work their asses off in a passionate fever to deliver the best game they possibly can. Most developers I worked with at Treyarch or Neversoft were legitimately passionate about their projects, sacrificing sleep, friendships, relationships and their own health to put their all into their games.

I guess my point is hate all you want at the corporate entity, but don't forget how those games are actually made. It's not a machine, it's people.
 
That's good and all, and if such is the case, then it's all just spin from the usual outlets.

Activision has still seemed shady throughout the whole thing, but eh. No big deal. Thanks for the insight.
 
[quote name='roland13x']No offense intended for any of the nay-sayers here, but I worked at Activision for 6 years and dealt with their contracts and how they do business quite often. I now own my own developer (http://blogs.ign.com/Realheroes/) and deal with publisher contracts on a daily basis.

Why did it take several months for them to speak up? It most likely didn't...it was most likely private conversations between the parties right away. When they couldn't agree, it went to court. Since they are public companies, it went public. This stuff happens on a daily basis, you just don't always read about it. Activision is not in the wrong here, they're just protecting their own investments (or to be more accurate, the company to acquired them's investments).

As for Kotick and the "exploit" line...well, they are a business, and a very successful one at that. "Exploit" to me is a terrible word as well, but in the end, that's exactly what it is. I never really cared for the newer management there (I'm talking the higher-higher ups...most production level people there were solid), and the annual releases was one major reason why I decided to leave and start my own thing.

However, even though "exploit" is a dirty word, don't forget that it's not like they push a big red button to pop out the latest CoD or GH. There are teams of hundreds of developers behind each release. The vast majority of which work their asses off in a passionate fever to deliver the best game they possibly can. Most developers I worked with at Treyarch or Neversoft were legitimately passionate about their projects, sacrificing sleep, friendships, relationships and their own health to put their all into their games.

I guess my point is hate all you want at the corporate entity, but don't forget how those games are actually made. It's not a machine, it's people.[/quote]

While I understand what your saying, there is also the view that is the loss that they take during a merger, and by opting not to publish the game, they also fully incur the losses from the development from the previous company.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']While I understand what your saying, there is also the view that is the loss that they take during a merger, and by opting not to publish the game, they also fully incur the losses from the development from the previous company.[/QUOTE] It's all in the legal docs, and I absolutely guarantee that they have their asses covered in ANY event so they get their money in the end. Your view is not the same as a publishing giant's lawyer's view.
 
[quote name='roland13x']No offense intended for any of the nay-sayers here, but I worked at Activision for 6 years and dealt with their contracts and how they do business quite often. I now own my own developer (http://blogs.ign.com/Realheroes/) and deal with publisher contracts on a daily basis.

Why did it take several months for them to speak up? It most likely didn't...it was most likely private conversations between the parties right away. When they couldn't agree, it went to court. Since they are public companies, it went public. This stuff happens on a daily basis, you just don't always read about it. Activision is not in the wrong here, they're just protecting their own investments (or to be more accurate, the company to acquired them's investments).

As for Kotick and the "exploit" line...well, they are a business, and a very successful one at that. "Exploit" to me is a terrible word as well, but in the end, that's exactly what it is. I never really cared for the newer management there (I'm talking the higher-higher ups...most production level people there were solid), and the annual releases was one major reason why I decided to leave and start my own thing.

However, even though "exploit" is a dirty word, don't forget that it's not like they push a big red button to pop out the latest CoD or GH. There are teams of hundreds of developers behind each release. The vast majority of which work their asses off in a passionate fever to deliver the best game they possibly can. Most developers I worked with at Treyarch or Neversoft were legitimately passionate about their projects, sacrificing sleep, friendships, relationships and their own health to put their all into their games.

I guess my point is hate all you want at the corporate entity, but don't forget how those games are actually made. It's not a machine, it's people.[/QUOTE]

Either they have something in their contract with Double Fine to allow them to recoup the costs of their subsidized development of Brutal Legend, or they don't. I would suspect, given the time and the back-and-forth, that Activision is merely attempting to threaten toothless legal action. OTOH, a company as insidious as Acitivision ought to know bloody well enough to include such provisions.

So I have two theories, only one of which I consider plausible:
1) Activision's contract with Double Fine allows them to retain some ownership or right of refusal for the title. I don't believe this is probable, since if it's explicitly stated, then it should be a relatively clean and non-contentious affair, wherein EA (or whomever were to distribute the title) would have to pay Activision whatever monies owed there are. But since it's such a sticky situation, I don't buy this at all. It simply isn't clear cut enough. So here's the theory I put stock in:

2) Activision is threatening EA with long and 'spensive lawsuits. "Pay us this amount of money now, or we'll take you to court, and, win or lose, we'll see to it that you end up paying more in attorney's fees than you would have paid us." Call it extortion, but it's a plausible threat given the situation at hand.

If Activision had this all straightened out properly, then it wouldn't be an issue for debate: just another "Activision are dicks and their contracts are dirty and mean" story. But since this appears to be contested and drawn out, it's necessarily more ambiguous than that. And therefore more litigious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Either they have something in their contract with Double Fine to allow them to recoup the costs of their subsidized development of Brutal Legend, or they don't. I would suspect, given the time and the back-and-forth, that Activision is merely attempting to threaten toothless legal action. OTOH, a company as insidious as Acitivision ought to know bloody well enough to include such provisions.

So I have two theories, only one of which I consider plausible:
1) Activision's contract with Double Fine allows them to retain some ownership or right of refusal for the title. I don't believe this is probable, since if it's explicitly stated, then it should be a relatively clean and non-contentious affair, wherein EA (or whomever were to distribute the title) would have to pay Activision whatever monies owed there are. But since it's such a sticky situation, I don't buy this at all. It simply isn't clear cut enough. So here's the theory I put stock in:

2) Activision is threatening EA with long and 'spensive lawsuits. "Pay us this amount of money now, or we'll take you to court, and, win or lose, we'll see to it that you end up paying more in attorney's fees than you would have paid us." Call it extortion, but it's a plausible threat given the situation at hand.

If Activision had this all straightened out properly, then it wouldn't be an issue for debate: just another "Activision are dicks and their contracts are dirty and mean" story. But since this appears to be contested and drawn out, it's necessarily more ambiguous than that. And therefore more litigious.[/QUOTE] I think the precedent that Atari paid ATVI monies for the rights to two previously Vivendi-published titles probably suggests that they are within their rights on this claim as well. Not sure why you can call a company "dicks" for protecting their own interests, especially if it was clearly in their documentation, which the dev signed.
 
Dicks being a personality trait endemic to business interests, mind. Smart, yes. Ethical or kind? Very questionable, but those aren't necessarily traits of successful businesspeople.

"Looking at the bottom line" means being an asshole. No need to get defensive about it.

If it was as simple as you're suggesting, then it would be over, and Activision would have EA's money in their pockets, and we'd be humming right along, waiting for BL to be released - now, wouldn't we? It is, undoubtedly, legally vague at best.
 
I think saying "it was in the contract to begin with" doesn't really remove the presence of dickism. In fact I think it makes it a bit more pronounced, in a "we're legally allowed to be dicks" sort of way.

Myke probably has a better response than I do though.

Plus, I think we're all weary from dealing with this thing for the third damn time. Activision struck out with this egg they just laid, since we've had previous threads detailing the two dumb (but probably legally backed) things they already did re: Brütal Legend.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Dicks being a personality trait endemic to business interests, mind. Smart, yes. Ethical or kind? Very questionable, but those aren't necessarily traits of successful businesspeople.

"Looking at the bottom line" means being an asshole. No need to get defensive about it.

If it was as simple as you're suggesting, then it would be over, and Activision would have EA's money in their pockets, and we'd be humming right along, waiting for BL to be released - now, wouldn't we? It is, undoubtedly, legally vague at best.[/QUOTE] Activision's suit vs. Spark wasn't legally vague at all, yet that went towards court. Companies take other companies to court so they can at least speak their side and possibly get a reduced settlement.
 
Not that familiar with the history of this game: what were the other two things?

I still am convinced it's not a matter clearly resolvable in DF's contract, otherwise it would be a simple and quickly-resolved issue: EA would pay up to Activision, or balk and BL would die like it was a Mortal Kombat side-story.

EDIT: Well, sure - with any civil suit, I suppose you're right. I can sue Strell for his avatar causing me undue duress. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be thrown out of court. Anyone can be sued for anything; it's a civil suit, after all. That said, what (admittedly little) I understand about the Activision/Spark issue centered around royalties claimed not paid, so there was a need to review whether that was the case or not (irrespective of the suit's other provision about having other developers work on later CoD titles).
 
Initially they just dumped the game from being published. This was around the merger with Blizzard, where a whole slew of 'em got dropped because of their inability to be exploited. Kotick was running around and almost being a smug prick about it, lumping Brütal Legend in with other cancellations, which included the newest Starbreeze-developed Chronicle of Riddick game (which is supposed to be quality) and some others. However, Fiddy Cent's latest game - "Fiddy Cents Caps some Terrist Iraqi Mofos" - was left on the ticket.

Then several months ago, it came to light that Activision appeared to be actively blocking any games looking for new publishers. Doublefine has been in this territory before with Psychonauts, so it wasn't new for them, but I doubt when it happened back then that Microsoft (who had initially funded that game) was actually trying to legally keep them from hooking up with someone else. Activision was basically telling everyone that "we won't publish it, and neither can you."

Two strikes already, now a third.

Yeah it might all be legally backed and so on, but that's just a guise to some people.
 
Sound legal basis or not, here's a lesson, kids: only knuckleheads take Activision contracts.

Reminds me that a new season of "Reaper" starts this week, actually.
 
You can't sue my avatar.

I can sue YOUR avatar for looking exactly like Brewster in Animal Crossing.

animal_crossing_city_folk_conceptart_B4qH7.jpg


In fact, that would be pretty funny to set into motion. [P.S. Ignore the boy.]
 
The ATVI/Spark suit was muuuuch more than that.

But the point here is that ATVI may not have wanted to publish these games, but they were not just cut like a 2007/2008 Mets bullpen pitcher either. They got payments for their other titles, they'll get payment for this one as well. ATVI didn't become the biggest publisher by leaving money on the table.

I am certain in the end EA will be paying up a chunk of money to ATVI, and wouldn't even doubt that it never really makes its way to the public forums. If I'm wrong, you can sue me :) Unless Vivendi was absolutely stupid, which, when considering the latest 50 Cent game getting a greenlight, is a distinct possibility.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sound legal basis or not, here's a lesson, kids: only knuckleheads take Activision contracts.[/QUOTE]

This is actually a really interesting point. You sign a deal with ATVI, you're going to get some big bucks to put your game out. But it will most likely be relatively miserable, with one publisher foot firmly on your throat, and your IP (if it's any good) "exploited" until the very end.

When we were shopping our game around, we talked with all publishers, big and small. In the end, we went with a very small publisher of dubious fame. We got a relatively smaller budget than we wanted, and we know we're not going to get the marketing support of a big publisher.

However, what we got has been the best developer/publisher relationship I've ever had. They allowed up to make the game exactly how we wanted to make it AND we got to keep the IP. We're actually very friendly with our publisher, and we both look forward to helping each other out. We hope to help make them a more respected publisher by making good, original games for them, and they hope we only get bigger and better at our craft. It's how it's supposed to work, and it's been a fantastic experience.

I just wish people wouldn't snicker or rush to judgment on our game based on our publisher's past. That sucks, but it's understandable.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']You still working on that firefighter game, Roland?[/QUOTE] In the final couple of weeks right now. Crunch time always sucks, but it hasn't been too painful.

We just had a couple focus tests with 8-14 year olds. Watching someone play your game for the first time is just an insane experience. One minute you're just ecstatic on a reaction or the way the player figured out a puzzle, and the next you're pulling your hair out as you quietly mumble to yourself "the other door...it's the door to your right. why are you so stupid??!" even though we're the ones who made that door too hard to find.

I posted it a bit earlier, but here's a dev blog I'm trying to get updated more frequently. We just did our VO recording with a pretty damn cool cast, and it came out awesome.

http://blogs.ign.com/Realheroes/

Thanks for asking...really appreciate it.
 
[quote name='roland13x']... you're pulling your hair out as you quietly mumble to yourself "the other door...it's the door to your right. why are you so stupid??!"[/quote]See, this is why I can't ever watch one of my roommates play videogames.

"No, man, reload before you go into the next room. Trust me. No? Fine.
...
See, now you're dead."
 
Roland makes an excellent point from the business side of things. Activision may be in the legal sense, right.

I still reserve the right to join in all the Activision hate though.

Also best of luck to you roland and your game. Listening to the Insomniac games podcast made me realize focus testing is really important in the game development process.
 
It shouldn't be DQT. I doubt most people would've had the patience or TASTE to enjoy games like "Panzer Dragoon", "Burning Rangers" and others if that were the case.
Look at how Disney had crashed themselves doing focus testing in some respects. I assume you mean focus groups by focus testing. Oh and I'm referring to the fact that Disney axing traditional Animated product resulted in it being axed from ALL American studios for feature length films.
I think relying on your instincts at times can be a very smart decision. "Lilo and Stitch" really succeeded but Michael Eisner CONTINUALLY tried to axe it.
 
[quote name='Strell']I'd think TC would actively try to sabotage his roommates.[/quote]"Okay, so when you get to Tristram, click on all the cows lying on the ground..."
 
Good points. I should've used the term play test. Often times a lot of games have interesting ideas, but just aren't fun. Those kinds of tests allow developers do realize this before they come out. I've never made a game before, but I do have some games in my collection with some "duh" design flaws any 8-14 year old kid could've pointed out.

You are right that developers shouldn't compromise their vision though. It's all about balance really.
 
In terms of vision I still think some Western developers don't take things as seriously as the Japanese. I believe that if you love gaming don't insult it by offering something subpar to a theatrical film. Just because we're gamers doesn't mean you can offer us shit.
 
It all comes down to who actualy owns the rights to Brutal Legand. If activison dosen't own the rights to it, the development costs they put into it don't mean crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top